Foot in Mouth x 3?

Friday

Jan 24, 2014 at 12:35 PMJan 24, 2014 at 4:43 PM

John Kerry’s been raising some eyebrows this week on the Syria-thing in a way which is starting to embarrass the the Regime, making one wonder if John Kerry really understands the role of the Secretary of State job, and whether he is following some sort of policy or just winging it.

Apparently, after Kerry said that no one individual or family has a legitimate claim to a country by accident of birth, a flutter of diplomatic notes came flying from the two dozen or so countries run by hereditary monarchies, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, UAR and a dozen others, all wanting to know if the United States is seriously urging the violent overthrow of thirteen allied countries which boast hereditary monarchies. this leaves aside the pesky question of why the US spent so much blood and treasure to put the emir of Kuwait back on the throne in 1990 in the Gulf War. And what we are doing in Afghanistan today.

Then there was that interesting comment that AQ shouldn’t be included in the Syrian talks, even though they are stake holders and are firing weapons, because we don’t negotiate with terrorists, which kind of raised the eyebrows of Israelis, Egyptians, Brits, Russians, Frenchmen, Turks, Spaniards, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Kenya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and about 40 Senators who wanted to know why this applied in Syria but no where else.

Then there was the curious statement that the world need not worry about AQ, because terrorists who get democratically elected become modern-day Jeffersonians, which has people the world over wondering if Kerry has ever heard of Hamas, Hezbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood, not to mention the IRA and a few dozen thugs in Africa.

What isn’t clear is what the American policy is in Syria. Clearly, the US is not an honest broker. The Americans caucus with the opposition, and the Russians are closeted with the government, and while the US wants Assad gone, the US apparently isn’t willing to be a signatory to any agreement that protects our interests, or the interests of our allies, if the opposition ends up being worse than Assad. Kerry declares that we are not there to intervene, but to help the Syrians find their own way. Really? That was sort of the same policy when the Americans promised in 1979 to keep the Sinai demilitarized. Remember that?

I’m just not sure what the policy is there. And I don’t understand Kerry’s role. But its increasingly looking that if these “talks” fail, they will fail because of mixed messages from the US that are making the entire world nervous.

John Kerry’s been raising some eyebrows this week on the Syria-thing in a way which is starting to embarrass the the Regime, making one wonder if John Kerry really understands the role of the Secretary of State job, and whether he is following some sort of policy or just winging it.

Apparently, after Kerry said that no one individual or family has a legitimate claim to a country by accident of birth, a flutter of diplomatic notes came flying from the two dozen or so countries run by hereditary monarchies, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, UAR and a dozen others, all wanting to know if the United States is seriously urging the violent overthrow of thirteen allied countries which boast hereditary monarchies. this leaves aside the pesky question of why the US spent so much blood and treasure to put the emir of Kuwait back on the throne in 1990 in the Gulf War. And what we are doing in Afghanistan today.

Then there was that interesting comment that AQ shouldn’t be included in the Syrian talks, even though they are stake holders and are firing weapons, because we don’t negotiate with terrorists, which kind of raised the eyebrows of Israelis, Egyptians, Brits, Russians, Frenchmen, Turks, Spaniards, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Kenya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and about 40 Senators who wanted to know why this applied in Syria but no where else.

Then there was the curious statement that the world need not worry about AQ, because terrorists who get democratically elected become modern-day Jeffersonians, which has people the world over wondering if Kerry has ever heard of Hamas, Hezbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood, not to mention the IRA and a few dozen thugs in Africa.

What isn’t clear is what the American policy is in Syria. Clearly, the US is not an honest broker. The Americans caucus with the opposition, and the Russians are closeted with the government, and while the US wants Assad gone, the US apparently isn’t willing to be a signatory to any agreement that protects our interests, or the interests of our allies, if the opposition ends up being worse than Assad. Kerry declares that we are not there to intervene, but to help the Syrians find their own way. Really? That was sort of the same policy when the Americans promised in 1979 to keep the Sinai demilitarized. Remember that?

I’m just not sure what the policy is there. And I don’t understand Kerry’s role. But its increasingly looking that if these “talks” fail, they will fail because of mixed messages from the US that are making the entire world nervous.